Phila. council flouts Scouts' antigay stanceA new policy on sexuality is likely to bring discussion as the national convention starts here.By Linda K. Harris and Miriam HillInquirer Staff Writers

Defying the national Boy Scouts policy of refusing membership to gays, the board of the Scouts' largest Philadelphia-area council has unanimously voted not to discriminate against homosexuals.

The decision puts the local council at odds with the national organization, which holds that homosexuality is inconsistent with the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law.

But the Cradle of Liberty Council, the nation's third largest - serving 87,000 youths in Philadelphia, Delaware and Montgomery Counties - this month added "sexual orientation" to its policy of nondiscrimination.

The conflict between the national and local organizations is sure to spark discussion at the National Convention of the Boy Scouts of America, which begins today at the Convention Center and continues through Saturday.

"We disagree with the national stance, and we're not comfortable with the stated national policy," said David H. Lipson Jr., board chairman of the Cradle of Liberty Council. "That's why we're working on a solution that works for everyone."

No one at the national office of the Boy Scouts of America in Texas could be reached for comment late yesterday.

In June 2000, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in the case of a New Jersey assistant scoutmaster who was expelled for being gay, that the Boy Scouts had the right to bar homosexuals as troop leaders.

The national Boy Scouts of America issued a statement saying it viewed the decision as a victory.

Lipson said that national policy hurt fund-raising and cost jobs locally. The Pew Charitable Trusts, among others, reduced its contribution, he said, though he did not say how much it had given to the local Boy Scouts.

No one at Pew was available to comment.

Although the United Way did not cut funding, it took heat from gay-rights activists and others. The agency funded a development program organized by the Boy Scouts that operated in public schools and was open to anyone. Even the limited funding caused problems.

"The reality is, we did get some pressure from other groups who said, 'This program may not discriminate, but this organization does,' " said Christine James-Brown, president of the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania.

The United Way served as a catalyst. Two years ago, the agency's representatives - along with local Boy Scout executives and community leaders, including gay and lesbian activists - began to meet to discuss the issue.

The statement issued this month by the Cradle of Liberty Council was a result of those discussions.

David L. Cohen, a Comcast executive who was chairman of the local United Way from May 1998 to 2001, was a participant. Cohen said that Philadelphia leaders decided they did not want to accept a policy that they did not agree with and that was harming the programs intended for area youths.

"We were not prepared to allow our kids to be casualties on the battlefield of adults who should know better," Cohen said.

James-Brown said the local United Way campaign spent a lot of time trying to understand the national policy.

"In the very beginning, people knew very little about why the national had that policy," James-Brown said. "There was anger about the policy. I think people set that aside and said, 'Let's try to make it work in this community.' "

Lipson said he did not want the gay-discrimination controversy to overshadow the many good programs the Boy Scouts offer.

"We'd like to move the discussion to standards for sexual conduct rather than sexual orientation," Lipson said.

Philadelphia's is not the first regional council to flout the controversial policies of the national Boy Scouts organization, or to have suffered consequences from the national policy.

In July 2001, the Boston Minuteman Council approved a bylaw that challenged the national council's policy. The rule effectively allows gay youths to be scouts and gay men to serve as scout leaders as long as they do not openly reveal or discuss their sexual orientation.

In December 2001, United Way boards in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties in California cut off funding to the local Boy Scout councils because of the national policy about gays.

I guess I must be some kind of a horrible gay hating bigot that I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling about a sodomite taking my son out on an overnight camping trip.

I mean, everything worked out great when the homosexuals infiltrated The Catholic Church, right? Just a coincidence that every time I hear about a victim of a Priest's child molesting, it's always a male, I'm sure.

""We disagree with the national stance, and we're not comfortable with the stated national policy," said David H. Lipson Jr., board chairman of the Cradle of Liberty Council. "That's why we're working on a solution that works for everyone."

The good people of Philadelphia need to terminate Mr. Lipson and his cohorts ASAP. These Leftist moles are in deep in all sorts of institutions and live for the opportunity to inject their dogma into the creeds and policies of traditional institutions like Scouting.

RX: Identify them, isolate them, excoriate them, cut them out of the institution, and eject them like sputum.

It is so sick that the Boy Scouts have become a focus for the homosexual lobby. You'd think at least the homosexual lobby wouldn't want to attract that kind of attention to themselves--obsession with being in charge of little boys...

I feel sorry for what is soon to be the first victim of these idiots. Some innocent little boy who trusts adults will be assulted and everyone will act surprised that it happened. What in the hell is wrong with these people?

They're doing it because they are confident of their ability to push the agenda which includes pederasty. The BSA organisation is doubly important as a target because it pushes mainstream traditional values and because it is a sodomite's dream. If they succeed, another pillar of society is gone.

In some ways, these assaults are like barometers of the condidence (or foolishness) of the Left. We know they seek destruction of Western culture and Judeo-Christian values, but the attacks they launch and the targets they choose communicate a great deal of their underlying strategic thinking.

This is a battle that has much of the cultural sympathy going against the Left. A conservative shift in American culture puts odds in our favor. If Scouting and its interested supporters fight back, these creatures cannot survive exposure to air and sunlight for long.

The whole problem is is that the moral majority, which I believe is a majority, sits back and allows minority groups to whine. If the Christian Coalition and other opposing groups would get off their asses, round up millions of voices, nothing will change it is up to all of us.

You'd think at least the homosexual lobby wouldn't want to attract that kind of attention to themselves--obsession with being in charge of little boys...

...That's the militants main goal! Militant Homo's want for people to believe that the lifestyle is normal, and therefore they should not be excluded from any activity. It goes along with their selfish attitude towards everything in life.

These are pervertedly sickminded people, trapped into a mindset of expedience.

I wonder what Mr. Lipson will say when a rash of predators strike in his council

Easy! "These attacks are caused by our intolerant society. We need to establish re-education camps where young heterosexuals can live in close proximity with homosexual men. In this way, the young heterosexuals will learn the errors of their ways and will not grow up to be closeted homosexuals who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality."

Time for a PA FREEP as that would do the best at national headquarters level.

This Council is out of control and their executive board is worse. For all of you PA FR each council has a web page and on that you can find the contact information for the paid scouters at council. It would be well worth your effort to send them email or snail-mail to express your disgust and at the same time send snail-mail to the national headquarters expressing your disgust at this council's behavior. Just might get them taken to the wood-shed by national headquarters. The national headquarters has a web site with contact information for sanil-mail but I don't remember it.

The BSA is actually a multitude of complicated organizations. First, the professional organization hires and fires Council Execs, who are employees of the Boy Scouts of America. If The Council Exec made this decision, then he or she is history. More than likely it was the council executive board, which are community volunteers, that made this decision. If so, then there is not much that the national office can do about it immediately. Although in the long run, the concil exec can replace those board members who are pro gay. The article is unclear about who actually made this decision, but I would guess that a local politician who is a council board member was involved. In such case the local politician will not be asked to continue hes/her service on the board. The term for board members is usually one year. Meanwhile, the local politician has picked up some brownie points from the gay community.

However, the council office does not appoint Scoutmasters, gay or otherwize. Scoutmasters are appointed by each individual troop and their sponsoring organization, with the approval of the council office and the national office.

In the case of a gay Scoutmaster, the national office can refuse that person membership in the Boy Scouts of America, which means that any scout troop which appoints a scoutmaster who is not approved is no longer a "Boy Scout Troop."

In any event, those folks who are concerned about gay scoutmasters should get involved locally at the Boy Scout Troop level. It is the troop who recommends to the sponsoring organization who is a scoutmaster or assistant scoutmaster.

Wel, this is a bit of a sidebar, but it goes to the reliability of the reporter:

In July 2001, the Boston Minuteman Council approved a bylaw that challenged the national council's policy. The rule effectively allows gay youths to be scouts and gay men to serve as scout leaders as long as they do not openly reveal or discuss their sexual orientation.

Ahh, no, in fact this is "Don't ask, don't tell", and it's precisely in line with National policy. You can be gay and a Scout or Scouter, as long as you don't discuss your orientation.

You can be gay and a Scout or Scouter, as long as you don't discuss your orientation.

You can be a bestial Scout or Scouter, as long as you don't discuss your orientation too. It doesnt mean youre serving honorably OR legally in the BSA, remember Scalia in the Dale case found the BSA doesnt seek out ax murderers either.

Don't ask, don't tell is something you and the other pro-homosexuals made up out of whole cloth...or maybe you can cite that regulation for us, OK?

A little review for those of you who may not be totally aware of how the BSA is organized:

A local BSA Council is run by the Council's Executive Board. The Board is made up of local businesspeople, community leaders, and usually a few Scouters. Representatives of each organization (churches, VFW Posts, PTA/PTOs, etc.) that sponsors Scout units (Packs, Troops, Crews, Ships) elect the Board members at the Council's annual meeting. These elections are rarely contested; they're usually a slate presented by the previous Board that's elected unanimously. The sponsoring organization representatives are generally not too attentive to this process.

The Council is a not-for-profit corporation; the Executive Board is it's Board of Directors. It's granted a charter (renewable annually) by National Council to operate the BSA program in a particular geographic area. The Council is repsonsible for supporting the sponsoring organizations, signing up new ones, raising money for and supporting Council-wide programs and properties (like the Council's summer camp and headquarters building), etc. To this end the board hires a Council (or Scout) Executive (think Council CEO) and various executive and support staff under him or her. The executives are trained and approved by National, but they are hired and paid by the local Councils.

Units (and their sponsoring organizations) recruit unit leaders. As of April, National conducts a simple background check, to see if you've got any felonies or child-abuse related offenses on your record. But it's the sponsoring organizations who are responsible for determining that a unit leader has the proper character, morality, and patience to work with children, parents, and the unit's other Scouters. The local Council will only get involved if the Scouter becomes publicly infamous for some reason.

A unit and it's sponsor can refuse to register either a Scout or a Scouter for any reason it chooses. A church can require that a Scouter be of it's faith. A VFW Post can decide that it's Troop is getting too big. A PTA can decide that if the parent won't get involved as a volunteer, the kid can't join. Personal hygeine can figure in. A divorced person, or someone living with someone they're not married to, can be judged as being immoral and unfit. A gay or lesbian can only become a unit leader if the sponsor allows it. And if they're not publicly out and make no reference or act to reveal it, especially in a Scouting setting, the Council is unlikely to know, or to do anything about it, given "Don't ask, don't tell".

Regardless of either the morality or fitness of the person who's the unit leader or the tenets of the sponsoring organization, parents would be well advised to get personally involved with their son or daughter's BSA unit. I don't care what you think you know. You never know.

As far as "morally straight" goes, there are numerous sponsoring organizations of units in the BSA that believe that homosexuality per se is not in and of itself immoral. That would include some churches, and numerous secular organizations (who sponsor units containing roughly about half of all Scouts).

What's likely to happen here is that National will ask the Executive Board President (notice that the Scout Executive is nowhere to be heard from; I seriously doubt if he or she asked for this) to explain himself. They'll want to know if this is another variant of "Don't ask, don't tell", or if this means that the Council will accept out homosexuals who will make their orientation and their connection to Scouting public. If that's so, National will look to see if the whole Board agrees with this. If the Board persists, National will threaten to refuse to renew their charter.

What happens next is theoretical, as it hasn't gotten beyond that yet. But they may well solicit another group of concerned citizens, one that will uphold National policy, to apply for a charter and award it to them. Either that, or merge the Council to one that's contiguous to it that is orthodox.

there are numerous sponsoring organizations of units in the BSA that believe that homosexuality per se is not in and of itself immoral. That would include some churches, and numerous secular organizations (who sponsor units containing roughly about half of all Scouts).

Tell that to Dale.

42
posted on 05/29/2003 9:09:26 PM PDT
by Coleus
(God is Pro Life and Straight http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/notify?detach=1)

The Boy Scouts of America sued to have members and leaders who are avowed homosexuals kicked out of the organization.

FACT

...

The Boy Scouts of America makes no effort to discover the sexual orientation of any member or leader. Scouting's message is compromised when members or leaders present themselves as role models whose actions are inconsistent with the standards set in the Scout Oath and Law.

and, elsewhere on that page,

We believe an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law.

The BSA always refers to "avowed homosexuals" as being not welcome in the BSA, not simply "homsexuals". They obviously think there's a difference.

The BSA has a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. The most famous example of this is the case of the Camp Yagoog staffer. He was asked by the camp director (or his assistant, I can't remember) if he was gay. The young man told him (truthfully), "Yes". The camp director fired him. The young man appealed to National. National directed that the young man, who had admitted that he was a homosexual, be re-hired and paid back wages, as the camp director has violated "Don't ask, don't tell." If you search the web on "Camp Yagoog gay", you'll find this.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is no fable, it's National policy that they've upheld.

Even though the Executive Board is made up of volunteers they must still be registered adult scouters. Part of that is signing a pledge that you will abbide to the national policies governing membership.

Given that the Executive Board in question is going against national they can be sent letters and sent packing.

That's a non sequitir. What's Dale got to do with whether or not a sponsoring organization may or may not believe that homosexuality is immoral? For example, the UU's certainly don't have a problem with it. The Episcopal Church has come out as opposing National's policy on this. Some Reform Judaism synagogues feel the same way. I think the United Church of Christ is also of this opinion. Dale has nothing to do with that, although his sponsor's opinion didn't do him any good when he granted a newspaper interview and referenced his homosexuality in it.

Even though the Executive Board is made up of volunteers they must still be registered adult scouters. Part of that is signing a pledge that you will abbide to the national policies governing membership.

Um, you sure about that? I was unaware that E-Board member is a registered position. You certainly don't have to have registration as a Scouter otherwise to be elected to the Board.

Given that the Executive Board in question is going against national they can be sent letters and sent packing.

That may be. I think that the procedure, though, is as I outlined. National is unlikely to take action against individual Board members; they'd look to the Board to do that themselves. With a whole Board in defiance, I believe they'll take action against the Board as a whole.

"We disagree with the national stance, and we're not comfortable with the stated national policy," said David H. Lipson Jr., board chairman of the Cradle of Liberty Council. "That's why we're working on a solution that works for everyone."

No, you are working on a solution that works only for a small amount of people, at the expense of the kids. Sick bastrads.

Anybody by chance have some contact info so we could follow Congressman Billybob's suggestion of Freeping the National Boy Scouts and asking them to revoke these sickos' charter?

Only you will never know about it, because chances are the pro-homosexual media won't report it.

If they do report it, the slant will be that it's intergenerational sex (NAMBLA's latest gimmick) that the children consented to, therefore it's none of our business what they do in the pup tent.

I think it's only a matter of time before Paulie "the huge-foreheaded RAT ba$tard" Begalia will be preaching to the dumbed-downed publik skooled masses that watch the CNN, that those of us who think that perverts who prey upon children are evil and should be forever removed from society are pedaphilephobic bigots.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.